#67224 by Douglas Chalmers on 4/30 at 6:15 am
(211 comments total)

#67216 by JNagarya on 4/29 at 7:58 pm: “...What sort of “starting over” are you willing to tolerate coming out of a population which includes a significant percentage of citizens willing to surrender the Bill of Rights—not for safety so much as because utterly ignorant of the meanings and intents thereof…?”

“Everybody gets the karma they have earned and we all get the government we deserve.”

Cliches are a substitute for thought.  But I take it we shouldn’t give a damn, as everything is predetermined, thus there’s no point in efforts at prevention. 

“Perhaps the USA should be partitioned and a wall built around this lot so that their problems won’t contaminate the democracy of the rest?”

Let’s imprison ourselves. That doesn’t make sense, but it would require thought to realize it.  Instead, let’s just cavalierly, lazily, call it “karma”.

“Lets try it out in Iraq first and see how it goes. That should keep the Halliburtons and Blackwaters in business for the coming few decades at least!”

How does any of that address the issue I raise?  It’s easy to pretend to give a damn.  It takes effort to actually give a damn.

#67216 by JNagarya on 4/29 at 7:58 pm: “...What sort of “starting over” are you willing to tolerate coming out of a population which includes a significant percentage of citizens willing to surrender the Bill of Rights—not for safety so much as because utterly ignorant of the meanings and intents thereof…?”

Everybody gets the karma they have earned and we all get the government we deserve.

Perhaps the USA should be partitioned and a wall built around this lot so that their problems won’t contaminate the democracy of the rest?

Lets try it out in Iraq first and see how it goes. That should keep the Halliburtons and Blackwaters in business for the coming few decades at least!

#67111 by Douglas Chalmers on 4/29 at 8:03 am
(208 comments total)

#67102 by JNagarya on 4/28 at 10:40 pm: “...There are alternatives, of course, such as actually reading the Constitution, as a beginning….”

Not much point if no-one in government is adhering to its precepts….... better to start over!

If one doesn’t know the contents of the Constitution, it isn’t likely one is able to compare and contrast gov’t actions with that standard with anything remotely near accuracy.  Based upon that fact, it would be premature and presumptuous to insist the gov’t is—or isn’t—compling with those standards.

The “starting over” don’t by the Framers was in a context of a population which was engaged—even passionately so—in politics, and informed.  What sort of “starting over” are you willing to tolerate coming out of a population which includes a significant percentage of citizens willing to surrender the Bill of Rights—not for safety so much as because utterly ignorant of the meanings and intents thereof?

#67102 by JNagarya on 4/28 at 10:40 pm: “...There are alternatives, of course, such as actually reading the Constitution, as a beginning….”

Not much point if no-one in government is adhering to its precepts….... better to start over!

Desperation now seethes in the regime’s every word — they can feel it — charges of treason are being penned — even those that have jumped ship know they too can be led to the block — the Uruguay escape ranch is being readied — how many will make it…will slip the noose?

#67091 by Douglas Chalmers on 4/28 at 9:58 pm
(199 comments total)

#67080 by JNagarya on 4/28 at 9:03 pm: “...why do you pretend to give a damn about actual politics…?”

“Oh, I don’t, ha ha! I just leave it all up to the “gum’mint” - just like you and everybody else.”

If I were one to leave it up to the gov’t, I wouldn’t spend my time in such places as this correcting those who babble about the Constitution (and history, and philosophy) they’ve never read. 

“What will happen, though, is that we will all reap the results of our actions in the long run. Action and reaction are opposite and equal - all empires eventually perish. That is karma!”

Easily said.  There are alternatives, of course, such as actually reading the Constitution, as a beginning.

#67080 by JNagarya on 4/28 at 9:03 pm: “...why do you pretend to give a damn about actual politics…?”

Oh, I don’t, ha ha! I just leave it all up to the “gum’mint” - just like you and everybody else.

What will happen, though, is that we will all reap the results of our actions in the long run. Action and reaction are opposite and equal - all empires eventually perish. That is karma!

#67076 by Douglas Chalmers on 4/29 at 3:17 am
(197 comments total)

#67072 by JNagarya on 4/29 at 3:09 am: “...You must have missed the Clinton impeachment.  It happened during the 1990s.  He was impeached by the House.  He was aquitted by the Senate….”

“Oh, did I, ha ha? You “...don’t see conspiracies where they do not exist…” but that is the whole game in democracy - its all a conspiracy - we are all being endlessly suckered.”

You clearly donn’t understand the meaning of democracy—and the fact that it cannot exist without the rule of law.  If you were better informed—of fact, not anti-“gum’mint” conspirabunk—you would be serious instead of indulging your “superior,” jocular, fashionable-cynicism-mistaken-for-wisdom, smugness.

Wild accusatons based upon nod-and-wink “shared” but unevidenced “knowingness” is a pseudo-busy laziness.  Humans not being perfect, our system is not perfect.  But there remains a distinction between system—“A system of laws”—and humans—“and not of men” (John Adams) which so many fail to make.  It’s all politics, no one ever concerns themselves with the fact and rule of law, and yet they pretend they give a “f*ck about the law—as concerns others, that is.

Thus is reinforced and perpetuated a self-fulfilling prophecy—the “gum’mint” is “beyond reach”—which remains as handy excuse to remain disengaged.  And uninformed.  And thus to ensure that the “gum’mint” is “beyond reach”.

Putting aside all the socially-corrosive, unevidenced conspirabunk, and the irresponsible “fun” that is, and the greater “fun” of metasticizing that, why do you pretend to give a damn about actual politics?

#67072 by JNagarya on 4/29 at 3:09 am: “...You must have missed the Clinton impeachment.  It happened during the 1990s.  He was impeached by the House.  He was aquitted by the Senate….”

Oh, did I, ha ha? You “...don’t see conspiracies where they do not exist…” but that is the whole game in democracy - its all a conspiracy - we are all being endlessly suckered.

“Drawing on a trove of private papers from Hillary Clinton’s best friend, the legendary Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein is to publish a hard-hitting and intimate portrait of the 2008 presidential candidate, which will reveal a number of “discrepancies” in her official story….”  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1719879.ece

#67068 by Douglas Chalmers on 4/28 at 8:15 pm
(195 comments total)

#67051 by JNagarya on 4/28 at 6:20 pm: “...For one, Bushit has yet to invoke Executive Privlege.  For another, it is limited: read _United States v. Nixon_….”

“All such immunities are limited and often exist only as a mere precedent but it is the way that they are played which makes them an “immunity” in the first place and delineates the breadth of them.”

It was expressly limited before ever tested by the fact of Congressional authority and responsibility to act as a check against the Executive by exercising oversight.  One cannot oversee that which one cannot see; oversight comes before Executive secrecty.

It’s limits beyond that are defined in statute and judicial descionis, such as _United States v. Nixon_.

“Judicial immunity is a typical example. Depending on which country, it has little actual legislated legal backing but all it takes is for all judges to “protect” each other by accepting it as unilateral and binding and it thus becomes so. In other words, they gang together to cover each other.”

In the US, judges are subject to impeachment and removal by the legislative body.  And it has been done.

Those who know how the system actually works—beginning with reading the Constitution—don’t see conspiracies where they do not exist.
 
“Interesting that Hillary Clinton began her legal career in the office prosecuting Nixon for impeachment.”

Before that Hillary was a “Goldwater Republican”.  And she did not begin her career “in the office prrosecuting Nixon for impeachment.  She was on the staff of a committee involved with investigating impeachment of Nixon.

“Impeachment” is _indictment_.  Had Nixon not resigned, he would have been tried—prosecuted—in the Senate.

You must have missed the Clinton impeachment.  It happened during the 1990s.  He was impeached by the House.  He was aquitted by the Senate.

#67051 by JNagarya on 4/28 at 6:20 pm: “...For one, Bushit has yet to invoke Executive Privlege.  For another, it is limited: read _United States v. Nixon_….”

All such immunities are limited and often exist only as a mere precedent but it is the way that they are played which makes them an “immunity” in the first place and delineates the breadth of them.

Judicial immunity is a typical example. Depending on which country, it has little actual legislated legal backing but all it takes is for all judges to “protect” each other by accepting it as unilateral and binding and it thus becomes so. In other words, they gang together to cover each other. 

Interesting that Hillary Clinton began her legal career in the office prosecuting Nixon for impeachment.

#66649 by tyler on 4/27 at 2:01 am
(Unregistered commenter)

How can the bush administration further abuse this ‘executive privilege’ before something is done to limit it.  The administration continues to bastardize the constitution, and it seems like its gotten so common-place that we’re all just waiting for his term to be over so he can go away. IMPEACH THEM ALL NOW!

For one, Bushit has yet to invoke Executive Privlege.  For another, it is limited: read _United States v. Nixon_. 

Nixon claimed his tapes were not official—gov’t—documents, but instead private.  Doesn’t matter: evidence is evidence is evidence.  He was forced to turn over the tapes anyway.

Executive Privilege does not stand in the face of investigation of evident criminal activity.

#66670 by lani on 4/27 at 6:06 am
(Unregistered commenter)

“. . . .  The Democratic leadership are a such bunch of cowards.”

The Democratic lleadership is doing two things: that which they were elected to do, and doing so in accordance with democratic legal and due processes.

You, on the other hand, don’t care a whole lot for the rule of law.  Neither do Bush, et al.

In law, one doesn’t simply jump to conclusions, distribute “Wanted—Dead—No Trail Necessary” flyers, saddle up a posse, and then go have a lynching bee.

We the people are the ultimate check on gov’t.  Congress is to represent We the people.  As concerns impeachment, it must be aboveboard, and based upon hard evidence.  One gathers evidence before one prefers charges and has a trial.  One gathers evidence through investigation.  That is also, obviously, before arriving at conclusions not supported by the evidence.

Youinsist on impeachment.  I insist on impeachment as a legal, aboveboard process which is self-evidently based not on partisanship but instead on hard evidence.

Congress investigates, gathers evidence, then lays out the evidence and explains its import.  We the people, based upon the eivdence, whether Congress should impeach.  Sufficient communication of that fact, based upon the hard evidence, will give Congress no choice but to impeach.

Attacking the cahracter of the Democratic leadership because it doesn’t act as a lynch mob reveals more about you than about those you attack.

“Henry Waxman is my hero. Since Waxman is a pitbull and I hope he bites down on Condi’s ankle and does not let go.”

Waxman is also Democratic leadership.  And no fool: his letter requesting documents “received or generated by any person in the Executive Office of the president” concerning the Tillman lies and cover-up lands directly on Bushit’s desk.  And it pierces any claim to purported Executive Privilege with a choice for Bushit: either provide the documents—“support the troops”—or claim Executive Privilege and demonstrate anew your hostility also to the military. 

It’s politically briliant as it takes from the Republicans support for—and protection of—the troops/military.  The Tillman case—and the voluntary, supportive integrity of Jessica Lynch, and of the soldier who had been ordered to shut up about how Tillman was actually killed, deserve honor, respect, and thank you—has the vast majority of We the people’s sympathy.  And Waxman—not the “support the troops” Republicans—is acting in behalf, there, of the military, military families, over against Bush, et al.

The ball is not merely in Bush’s court; it is in his face.  We only need wait and watch for how Bushit makes this centrally crucial decision:

Executive Privilege, and several more nails in the coffin of his illegitimate occupation of the office? 

Or the correct decision—and thus an admission that Executive Privilege is not only not absolute, but is also negotiable down to limited in scope.

Waxman is a lawyer.  Bushit is not.  Waxman is a lawyer.  Cheney is not.  They are too clever for their own good.

#66746 by W904 on 4/27 at 9:09 am
(1 comments total)

The Bush administration will continue to fight anyway it can to keep the truth from coming out. They can use executive privilege or if that does really apply “I cannot recall” will always work.

The administration only has to hold on until the end of 2008 then a lot of pressure will be off.

The prosecutions of the Bush gang will continue for years after 1/21/2009.

And it’s apparent you’ve not yet witnessed what Congress can do as co-equal branch in take-downs of the Executive, regardless how deranged the latter.

Another noted that the Sergeant at Arms can go and get her, and aynone else Congress wants to talk to under oath in public.  Excepting the SC, Congress establishes the courts.  Congress also determines how many justices sit on the SC—and that includes the power to reduce the humber of same.

Congress also has the authority to conduct trails, such as impeachments; and if that results in conviction, removal.  They can enforce that removal, at which point they won’t have any but a few vociferiously blithering idiots complaining about it.

To paraphrase Rumsfeld, but within the realm of reality and scope of law: destruction of evidence is itself evidence of destruction of evidence.  And as evidence it is itself probative.

She’s a murderous, lying SOB like the rest of them.

They’re all drowning in blood.

Google video: 9/11 Press for Truth

#66693 by bwax on 4/27 at 4:52 am: “...Of course Dr. Rice wants to respond in writing.  I would too, if I were her.  Look at the grilling Al Gonzales got the other day.  Even a slick talker like Dr. Rice is bound to get a pounding if she were to get in front of a congressional committee as the 2008 election season approaches….”

She already did before when Sen. Barbara Boxer put her on the spot. Condy wriggle dout of it but she would’nt succed so easily again.

The Bush administration will continue to fight anyway it can to keep the truth from coming out. They can use executive privilege or if that does really apply “I cannot recall” will always work.

The administration only has to hold on until the end of 2008 then a lot of pressure will be off.

Congress might also consider asking Rice about her role in events leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

There seem to be many questions about her activities, including her duties as national security advisor prior to and during the 9/11 attacks. See:

“Viewpoints on 9/11 attacks span continuum of concerns”

American Chronicle

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=13487

-  -  -

“Poll results on 9/11 attacks show many Americans have suspicions”

American Chronicle

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=12137

CONdi, like “Speedy” Gonzales, is not only a liar, as evidenced by her sordid display during her 9/11 Commission testimony, she is also incompetent.
Look at her botched jobs both as National Security Adviser before 9/11 and her pathetic attempts at Middle East peacemaking.

Since she is both a LIAR and totally INCOMPETENT, she and Gonzales make for a nice pair of book ends to the INCOMPETENT LIAR that took over the White House during the December 2000 bloodless coup.

Caption: “I expect you to whip him within an inch of his life!”

I wonder how much time she spends touring those secret CIA prisons where all the “renditioning” - kidnapping and torture - takes place? She is in control of them!

Her mouth is so g…o..o..d.. for “blow job” !

“. . . .  “There is a constitutional principle. There is a separation of powers and advisers to the president under that constitutional principle are not generally required to go and testify in Congress.”

Executive provilege does not exist against criminal investigation.  It didn’t apply to Nixon, it doesn’t apply to you, twit. 

As for having answered “the same” questions several times before: then you won’t have Gonzales’ problem, as your answers are clearly memorized.  Do it for your employer, We the people.

UNDER OATH or UNDER ARREST.